| RE: [technology-pmc] Sapphire |
Attached is a draft with changes to the scope section per Gunnar's comments. In particular... 1. Dropped the "some" wording from the "key deliverables" statement. 2. Added a paragraph on extensibility. 3. Added the words "domain-specific" in front of "modeling framework" to bullet #2. - Konstantin -----Original Message----- From: Gunnar Wagenknecht [mailto:gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 11:44 PM To: Konstantin Komissarchik Cc: 'Technology PMC'; emo@xxxxxxxxxxx; teri.whitaker@xxxxxxxxxx; greg.stachnick@xxxxxxxxxx; pieter.humphrey@xxxxxxxxxx; mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [technology-pmc] Sapphire Am 12.06.2010 19:20, schrieb Konstantin Komissarchik: >> From reading the proposals it sounds like point 1 and 3 should be *the* >> key deliverables but not _some_. > > I can remove the word "some", but it does not make sense to remove #2. It is > key to making Sapphire possible. Ok. > I think it would make the most sense for parties contemplating writing other > renderers for Sapphire to do that in Sapphire project. That would simplify > logistics, communication and community building. So I do not want to steer > those parties to separate projects by restricting Sapphire scope in this > way. However, if a party came a long and expressed specific interest in > building a renderer for Sapphire in another project, I would not be opposed > to amending Sapphire scope to specifically exclude that implementation. Eclipse is all about extensibility. A few words in the scope where adopters can extend Sapphire do not harm. > Sapphire modeling framework is not a general modeling solution and it will > never be one. It might help to think of it as a domain specific language > (DSL) over the modeling space specifically tailored to the needs of UI > developers. So, instead of "A compact and easy to learn modeling framework tailored to the needs of UI writers." you could narrow it to "A domain specific way to model UI elements which is compact and easy to learn." (or something along the lines). Note, what bothers me is the term "modeling framework" as part of the scope. If it's a domain specific modeling solution then why not name it as such? That reduces the scope and might help reducing the chance of any X vs. Z discussions. -Gunnar -- Gunnar Wagenknecht gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://wagenknecht.org/
Attachment:
Sapphire (rev 4).pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document